Interesting talk about cause of Liberal vs. Conservative views
If you've never seen TED talks you should check them out, most are well worth the time to see.
Anyway I found this one interesting, another user msged me this last night and I wondered if I should post it or not given the huge US elections thread and the constant political battles that go on here
I think it's very interesting, I've always felt that both "sides" are important and bring different things to the table.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Illuminates the hypocrisy of smugness that too often drifts from both sides of the political spectrum.
Also touches upon a fear of mine about the internet...
A medium which provides the broadest spectrum of thought and wisdom collected by mankind, yet also provides the easiest means to find, and become the 'team mates' of, those with near identical ideologies.
__________________
"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable." - Carl Sagan Freedom consonant with responsibility.
I wish there was a way to express this world view easily to others, it's difficult to catagorize without a 20 minute lecture like this. In many ways, this video is too idealistic, pragmatic, and displays a certain innocence or avoidance of the certain darker parts of humanity in the framing of his facts (his praising the Dalai Lama)...Perhaps out of neccessity to simplify the message but I generally agree with this thesis and it's what I've always believed in even as a kid. All of the current events are simply deeply rooted in human psychology, from the "moral" conflicts of politics to the testosterone fueled herding and cordisol driven flight or flight mentality of financial bubbles.
#1 - Interesting that he's in a room of predominantly liberals telling them to stop thinking "we're right and they are wrong" and look closer at the reasons why people on the "other team" are for the things they are for.
#2 - I don't buy this "yin-yang" philosophy. It is hard to believe that good and evil are REQUIREMENTS for the earth to go around. Change vs Stability. Left vs Right. Love vs Hate. I have trouble believing that everything needs an equal counterbalance. Yes, it is very Christian philosophy to say "X is bad, Y is good" vs eastern philosophy to say "X and Y make up the way the world works and are neither good nor bad". But when applied to certain things like "Murder is bad but giving food and shelter to orphans is good", I have a hard time saying "well, let me step outside my moral matrix and see that Bob was really, really angry with Tom for sleeping with his wife and dammit if those orphans really wanted to survive they wouldn't have let their parents die." I realize that eastern philosophy has survived thousands of years on the belief that everything is required in this world to keep it in balance. One of my comparative religion professors even suggested that the belief in balance is one reason why Europe went looking for China rather than the reverse. "If you believe in balance, there is no reason to try to improve things and throw off that balance".
I think a desire to improve the human condition is not achieved by accepting the view that each persons world view is part of a balancing act. Reverend Phelps is an evil ass and his beliefs hold no world value, despite the Eastern belief that Phelps provides a counterbalance to a different world view that gays deserve equality and acceptance into our society.
Last edited by Devils'Advocate; 09-20-2008 at 06:34 AM.
I honestly don't know much about eastern philosophy so it'd be interesting with someone who knows more to chime in, but I'm not sure that taking the position that there's good means there's evil means that all evil is justified or shouldn't be combated.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
#1 - Interesting that he's in a room of predominantly liberals telling them to stop thinking "we're right and they are wrong" and look closer at the reasons why people on the "other team" are for the things they are for.
#2 - I don't buy this "yin-yang" philosophy. It is hard to believe that good and evil are REQUIREMENTS for the earth to go around. Change vs Stability. Left vs Right. Love vs Hate. I have trouble believing that everything needs an equal counterbalance. Yes, it is very Christian philosophy to say "X is bad, Y is good" vs eastern philosophy to say "X and Y make up the way the world works and are neither good nor bad". But when applied to certain things like "Murder is bad but giving food and shelter to orphans is good", I have a hard time saying "well, let me step outside my moral matrix and see that Bob was really, really angry with Tom for sleeping with his wife and dammit if those orphans really wanted to survive they wouldn't have let their parents die." I realize that eastern philosophy has survived thousands of years on the belief that everything is required in this world to keep it in balance. One of my comparative religion professors even suggested that the belief in balance is one reason why Europe went looking for China rather than the reverse. "If you believe in balance, there is no reason to try to improve things and throw off that balance".
Your example, does, in fact highlight the balance... And probably in a way that you'd agree is required to make the world go round. It's quite simple: Life vs. Death.
Giving food & shelter to orphans is encouraging their well-being and thus a part of life.
Bob murdering Tom is a part of death.
There is a spectrum for both life and death in terms of what is viewed as "acceptable" (depending heavily on the context form which it emerges); but regardless of these differing opinions, they are equally as viable in their respective spectrum. Murder is a part of death, whether we bestow upon it our acceptance or not is irrelevant.
It is interesting that the morality of liberals are by themselves unworkable in a society. Loyalty and authority are necessary in order to have a society. Excessive amounts will conflict with harm and fairness but, a lack of loyalty and authority will cause extensive harm and unfairness. The phrase "there was no king in Israel and everyone did what was right in their own eyes" comes to mind. It is the theme and warning of the book of Judges.
Purity is the most undervalued of the five. Lack of purity is the reason why we have to lock our doors when we go out today and we keep our children on a much shorter leash then we had when we were children. When society loses its consensus on what is shameful the government has to make more laws and exercise more authority to substitute for our lack of purity. This in turn creates more conflict with harm/fairness and loyalty/authority.
It is interesting that the morality of liberals are by themselves unworkable in a society. Loyalty and authority are necessary in order to have a society. Excessive amounts will conflict with harm and fairness but, a lack of loyalty and authority will cause extensive harm and unfairness. The phrase "there was no king in Israel and everyone did what was right in their own eyes" comes to mind. It is the theme and warning of the book of Judges.
Purity is the most undervalued of the five. Lack of purity is the reason why we have to lock our doors when we go out today and we keep our children on a much shorter leash then we had when we were children. When society loses its consensus on what is shameful the government has to make more laws and exercise more authority to substitute for our lack of purity. This in turn creates more conflict with harm/fairness and loyalty/authority.
...But that purity of yesteryear you speak of, may not in fact represent someone else's sense of purity. Perhaps children had a longer leash in the past, but other persons in society were on a much shorter leash. Minorities - racial or gendered, spring to mind. Did the predominant social views of those in power during that era, who dictated the terms and understanding of concepts like purity and shamefulness, and thus lead to wider spread oppression of those outside the circle of power than we have today, represent "true" purity?
What is "true" purity? Is there even such a thing? To you it means something, but to others it means something quite different.
...But that purity of yesteryear you speak of, may not in fact represent someone else's sense of purity. Perhaps children had a longer leash in the past, but other persons in society were on a much shorter leash. Minorities - racial or gendered, spring to mind. Did the predominant social views of those in power during that era, who dictated the terms and understanding of concepts like purity and shamefulness, and thus lead to wider spread oppression of those outside the circle of power than we have today, represent "true" purity?
What is "true" purity? Is there even such a thing? To you it means something, but to others it means something quite different.
I don't believe a government can dictate a standard of purity. If that was the case abortion and gay marriage would have no opposition in society. They have much opposition. I'm not sure if a person can define what "true purity" is outside of a religious tradition. If you don't have a strong religious well to draw from everything is suspect and therefore you can't say anything is absolute.
What I'm talking about is a "practical" purity. It does change over time as the values within society change. Today it is shameful to have sex with children, hit your wife in public, masturbate in public, use certain racial words in mixed company, ect. You know it is a societal standard if both liberals and conservatives find some action shameful. In some parts of the world it is shameful if you let your daughter/sister live after finding out they have been dating. Societal standards can be wrong. The problem with their absence is that it puts a great pressure on authority(government) to fill the gap. That means more police and jails and less freedom. Years ago we had a consensus on most things and people conformed to that consensus because of there strong desire to be accepted by the group. Today we lack consensus on most things and suffer with more government because of it.
#1 - Interesting that he's in a room of predominantly liberals telling them to stop thinking "we're right and they are wrong" and look closer at the reasons why people on the "other team" are for the things they are for.
#2 - I don't buy this "yin-yang" philosophy. It is hard to believe that good and evil are REQUIREMENTS for the earth to go around. Change vs Stability. Left vs Right. Love vs Hate. I have trouble believing that everything needs an equal counterbalance. Yes, it is very Christian philosophy to say "X is bad, Y is good" vs eastern philosophy to say "X and Y make up the way the world works and are neither good nor bad". But when applied to certain things like "Murder is bad but giving food and shelter to orphans is good", I have a hard time saying "well, let me step outside my moral matrix and see that Bob was really, really angry with Tom for sleeping with his wife and dammit if those orphans really wanted to survive they wouldn't have let their parents die." I realize that eastern philosophy has survived thousands of years on the belief that everything is required in this world to keep it in balance. One of my comparative religion professors even suggested that the belief in balance is one reason why Europe went looking for China rather than the reverse. "If you believe in balance, there is no reason to try to improve things and throw off that balance".
I think a desire to improve the human condition is not achieved by accepting the view that each persons world view is part of a balancing act. Reverend Phelps is an evil ass and his beliefs hold no world value, despite the Eastern belief that Phelps provides a counterbalance to a different world view that gays deserve equality and acceptance into our society.
Great post. The last paragraph is especially poignant. I have to say, I hated this video for the reasons you stated.
#1 - Interesting that he's in a room of predominantly liberals telling them to stop thinking "we're right and they are wrong" and look closer at the reasons why people on the "other team" are for the things they are for.
I believe that the current (and intended) semantic of 'liberal' is not merely that of individualism, innovation and equality, but nowadays it also stands as a uniform group that opposes conservatism. Therefore, liberals indeed claim that there is a 'right' and a 'wrong'. Hence, in the greater scheme of things, liberalism is no different from conservatism.
So what he implies is that we take a step outside the whole 'preference' bit, even of the whole 'preference for allowing everyone to have their own preference'... and more to an objective perspective, not necessarily one of indifference, but to one where one does not look at the differences in choice, but to try to understand the differences in motives to achieving those choices.
It is interesting that the morality of liberals are by themselves unworkable in a society. Loyalty and authority are necessary in order to have a society. Excessive amounts will conflict with harm and fairness but, a lack of loyalty and authority will cause extensive harm and unfairness. The phrase "there was no king in Israel and everyone did what was right in their own eyes" comes to mind. It is the theme and warning of the book of Judges.
Purity is the most undervalued of the five. Lack of purity is the reason why we have to lock our doors when we go out today and we keep our children on a much shorter leash then we had when we were children. When society loses its consensus on what is shameful the government has to make more laws and exercise more authority to substitute for our lack of purity. This in turn creates more conflict with harm/fairness and loyalty/authority.
It's been a long time since I read the Bible but the passage "there was no king in Israel and everyone did what was right in their own eyes" has a vastly different meaning for me.
Before there was a king everybody took personal responsibility for their actions and afterwards the king decided what was right and wrong and decided when to war etc. Even god didn't want Israel to have a king and only selected one after they begged to be like the other nations.
I can't argue with purity but as soon as you give that authority to the government, as the Israeli's did, society begins to break down. Consensus may have some effect but when alone each persons relationship with their god or them self is the final deciding factor of their purity.
It's been a long time since I read the Bible but the passage "there was no king in Israel and everyone did what was right in their own eyes" has a vastly different meaning for me.
Before there was a king everybody took personal responsibility for their actions and afterwards the king decided what was right and wrong and decided when to war etc. Even god didn't want Israel to have a king and only selected one after they begged to be like the other nations.
I can't argue with purity but as soon as you give that authority to the government, as the Israeli's did, society begins to break down. Consensus may have some effect but when alone each persons relationship with their god or them self is the final deciding factor of their purity.
Judges begins as Joshua(Moses successor) dies. They have the high Priest and the Tabernacle for worship but, no political leader. Soon Israel falls into sin. Usually it is the worship of other gods. God is angered and allows the nations around them to be victorious against them. Israel cries out to God. God hears them and raises up a judge who brings military success and justice to the land. Israel behaves themselves while the judge still live. The judge dies and Israel falls into sin. The cycle repeats itself.
You are right that God warns Israel about the perils of government and Kings. The thing is God does this knowing full well they would want one anyhow. In fact he has instructions for Kings in the Mosaic law. Man would do better without government and all its trappings if we were all good people. The problem is that even the best liberal or conservative misses the mark. We all have our dark selfish side. None of us live up perfectly to our ideals and plenty fail miserably at doing what they know they should. Law and order are needed because of who we are.
It is interesting that the morality of liberals are by themselves unworkable in a society. Loyalty and authority are necessary in order to have a society.
I don't think the studies showed that liberals didn't have any loyalty or respect for authority, it just showed that their value of those was lower overall.
And that was kind of the point of the video wasn't it, that either "side" by itself probably couldn't constitute a fully working society.
As you say order is necessary in a society, and loyalty and authority have provided those in the past. But there must also be times where loyalty and authority are discarded or usurped, otherwise we wouldn't have the leaps forward in social consciousness that we get sometimes. Sometimes the government has to be overthrown because it is so corrupt being loyal and submissive does more harm than good. Sometimes an individual needs to move outside the authority so that things live freedom from slavery, rights for women, etc can become part of the social consciousness despite efforts of those in authority to stop it.
To me it would be nice if society worked without having to submit to authority and everyone does what's right because it's right, but we're probably a long way off from that.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Interesting talk about cause of Liberal vs. Conservative views
Well played
